Digital compared with screen-film mammography: Performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program

Radiology

Volumn 268, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 684-693

  Chiarelli, Anna M ^a,b   Edwards, Sarah A ^b   Prummel, Maegan V ^a   Muradali, Derek ^a   Majpruz, Vicky ^a   Done, Susan J ^c   Brown, Patrick ^a,b   Shumak, Rene S ^a   Yaffe, Martin J ^d  

^a Cancer Care Ontario ^*  (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL DIRECT RADIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREMENOPAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; TUMOR INVASION;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; ONTARIO; PREVALENCE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 84883193696     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122567     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):727- 737, W237-W242.
2. Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 1996;199(3): 811-817.
3. D'Orsi CJ, Newell MS. Digital mammography: clinical implementation and clinical trials. Semin Roentgenol 2007;42(4): 236-242.
4. Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgård C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159(2): 287-294.
5. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998;209(2): 511-518.
6. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138(3): 168-175.
7. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276(1): 33-38.
8. Chiarelli AM, Kirsh VA, Klar NS, et al. Influence of patterns of hormone replacement therapy use and mammographic density on breast cancer detection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10): 1856-1862.
9. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(13): 1081-1087.
10. Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Day N, Luben R. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme. J Med Screen 1998;5(4): 207-212.
11. van Gils CH, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52(4): 267-271.
12. Banks E. Hormone replacement therapy and the sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer screening: a review. J Med Screen 2001; 8(1): 29-34.
13. Kavanagh AM, Mitchell H, Giles GG. Hormone replacement therapy and accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 2000; 355(9200): 270-274.
14. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17): 1773-1783.
15. Dershaw DD. Status of mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: digital versus film. Breast J 2006; 12(2): 99-102.
16. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006;16(1): 38-44.
17. Heddson B, Rönnow K, Olsson M, Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a populationbased screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64(3): 419-425.
18. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 2008;18(1): 183-191.
19. Sala M, Comas M, Macià F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X. Implementation of digital mammography in a population- based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 2009; 252(1): 31-39.
20. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(4): 860-866.
21. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 2009;251(2): 347-358.
22. Juel IM, Skaane P, Hoff SR, Johannessen G, Hofvind S. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population- based screening program: the Sogn and Fjordane study. Acta Radiol 2010;51(9): 962-968.
23. Domingo L, Romero A, Belvis F, et al. Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(9): 2020-2028.
24. Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M. Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screenfilm mammography in a population-based screening program. Acta Radiol 2010;51(5): 491-497.
25. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O'Doherty A, Flanagan FL. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193(4): 1010-1018.
26. Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Vande Putte G, et al. Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol 2010;20(10): 2307-2314.
27. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8): 493-502.
28. Chiarelli AM, Halapy E, Nadalin V, Shumak R, O'Malley F, Mai V. Performance measures from 10 years of breast screening in the Ontario Breast Screening Program, 1990/91 to 2000. Eur J Cancer Prev 2006;15(1): 34-42.
29. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2002.
30. Health Canada. Report from the Evaluation Indicators Working Group. Guidelines for Monitoring Breast Screening Program Performance. Public Health Agency of Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa, Ont: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2007.
31. Diggle PJ, Heagerty P, Liang K, Zeger SL. Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002.
32. SAS Institute Inc. Statistical Analysis Software version 9.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 2008.
33. Pisano ED, Zuley M, Baum JK, Marques HS. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45(5):813-830, vi.
34. Yaffe MJ, Rowlands JA. X-ray detectors for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 1997;42(1): 1-39.